BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S
1999-2000 Regular Session B
5
9
9
SB 599 (Costa)
As Introduced February 23, 1999
Hearing date: April 13, 1999
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:br
YOUTH AUTHORITY: "SLIDING SCALE" FEES
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation: SB 2055 (Costa) Chapter 632, Statutes
of 1998
AB 70 (Woods) 1997-98 Session; died in Senate
Appropriations
AB 2312 (Woods) 1995-96 Session; vetoed
SB 681 (Hurtt) Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996
Support: California State Association of Counties
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SLIDING SCALE" FEE, SHOULD THE COMMITMENT OFFENSE BE
SPECIFIED TO BE THE OFFENSE REQUIRING THE LONGEST PERIOD OF COMMITMENT PRIOR
TO PAROLE CONSIDERATION, AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE YOUTH AUTHORITY BE PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE CATEGORY OFFENSE
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 2
UPON WHICH A WARD'S COMMITMENT IS BASED WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER OR THE COUNTY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make the following two
changes to the "sliding scale" applicable to Youth
Authority commitments: 1) specify the commitment offense
to be the offense requiring the longest period of
commitment prior to parole consideration, as specified; and
2) to prohibit the Youth Authority from changing the
category offense upon which a ward's commitment is based
without the prior approval of the chief probation officer
or the county.
Under current law , effective January 1, 1997, counties must
pay the state $150 (instead of the former $25) for each
minor committed to the Department of the Youth Authority.
(Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) section 912) In
addition, counties must contribute a "sliding scale"
contribution for Youth Authority commitments based upon the
category of the offender; the sliding scale ranges from 50
percent of the per capita institutional cost of the Youth
Authority for category 5 offenses (category 1 being the
most serious out of 7 categories), 75 percent for category
6 offenses, and 100 percent for category 7 offenses. (WIC
section 912.5)
Under current law , the offense upon which a commitment is
based - the basis for assessing the sliding scale fee -
means any offense that has been sustained by the juvenile
court and is included in the determination of the maximum
term of imprisonment by the juvenile court. (WIC section
912.5(b))
This bill instead would define "offense" to mean "the
offense requiring the longest period of commitment prior to
parole consideration," as specified.
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 3
This bill additionally would provide that "the Department
of the Youth Authority shall not change the category
offense upon which a ward's commitment is based without the
prior approval of the chief probation officer or the
county."
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
The bill is sponsored by the Chief Probation
Officers of California and would provide that
an offender's classification for purposes of
charging counties shall be the most serious
and sustained offense in an offender's
history. This provision of SB 599 simply
clarifies that wards with violent or serious
criminal background shall not, for charging
counties, be considered low risk.
The bill also provides a greater role for the
Chief Probation Officers/County in ensuring
that the Youthful Offenders Parole
Board/California Youth Authority does not
change the classification of (a) minor's
crime and then bill the county without any
input from local officials.
2. Sliding Scale; History and Effect
In 1996, the Legislature enacted legislation generally
increasing the fees that counties pay to the state for
commitment of juvenile offenders to CYA. (SB 681(Hurtt)
Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996 These new fees went into
effect in January of 1997. Before SB 681, counties paid
the state $25 -- an amount set in 1961-- each month for
each offender sent to CYA. SB 681 increased this fee to
$150 per offender per month, and also enacted a "sliding
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 4
fee scale" for offenders sent by counties to CYA. As
explained by the Legislative Analyst's office:
When a ward is sent to the Youth Authority, the
Youthful Offender Parole Board assigns the ward
a category number -- from 1 to 7 -- based on the
seriousness of the commitment offense.
Generally, wards in categories 1 through 4 are
considered the most serious offenders, while
categories 5 through 7 are less serious. Under
this legislation, counties pay 100 percent of
the costs of wards in category 7 (the least
serious offense category), 75 percent of the
costs for wards in category 6, and 50 percent of
the costs for wards in category 5. Counties pay
the proposed $150 per month fee for all other
commitments.<1>
The momentum behind sliding scale began in 1994, when the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) reviewed CYA placements
and discovered that 24 counties at that time sent primarily
serious offenders to CYA. In contrast, LAO found that "20
counties' total commitments to the Youth Authority consist
(at that time) of 50 percent or more of less serious
offenders."<2> The legislation imposing a sliding scale
fee for CYA commitments was intended to address this
situation.
In its analysis of the 1999-00 budget, the Legislative
Analyst's Office concludes that the sliding scale approach
is achieving its intended objectives:
The sliding scale legislation was intended to
achieve two primary objectives: (1) reduce
the over-reliance by counties on the Youth
Authority for less serious juvenile offenders
-----------------------
<1> Legislative Analyst's Office, Analysis of the 1996-97
Budget Bill (February 1996).
<2> Legislative Analyst's Office, Analysis of the 1994-95
Budget Bill (February 1994).
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 5
and (2) encourage counties to create a fuller
spectrum of locally available programming to
meet the needs of juvenile offenders.
Available data demonstrate that the first
objective has been met. Counties are being
significantly more judicious in their use of
the Youth Authority as a placement option for
wards of the juvenile court. Although it is
premature to declare the second objective a
success as well, it is clear that many
counties are responding to the change by
creating new local program options.
On the whole, we believe that these trends
are positive, as local programming is likely
to be more effective and less expensive than
a Youth Authority commitment for less serious
offenders. Moreover, because their offense
histories do not involve serious violent
crimes, these wards are not likely to pose a
serious threat to public safety if kept
within the community.
3. Modifying Sliding Scale to Account for County Cost
Sharing
In its 1999-00 budget analysis, the Legislative Analyst
suggests the Legislature consider revising the current
length of stay decision making process to account for the
fact that counties now are obligated to pay for a
significant portion of a ward's state incarceration costs:
Under current law, once a young offender is
accepted by the Youth Authority as a new
admission, he becomes a ward of the
department, and all decisions regarding
length of stay, parole, and parole revocation
are within the sole jurisdiction of the YOPB
. . . .
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 6
This method of determining length of stay may
be appropriate for wards where the state is
bearing almost all of the costs. However, it
is less appropriate for wards in categories V
through VII where counties are paying 50
percent or more of the cost to house the
ward. This issue takes on particular
importance given the large disparities that
apparently exist between what the counties
and the YOPB view as appropriate periods of
secure confinement for these less serious
offenders. For example, as discussed in our
analysis of the YOPB, parole consideration
dates (PCDs) for less serious offenders in
the Youth Authority ranged from 19 months for
Category V to 13 months for Category VII. By
contrast, most counties are implementing
programs for these offenders that are
generally six to nine months in duration.
The Analyst suggests the Legislature consider the following
different set of reforms with respect to the length of stay
for Youth Authority wards:
Require That the Juvenile Court,
Rather Than the YOPB, Set the Initial PCD.
One option is for the juvenile court,
instead of the YOPB, to decide the PCD. The
juvenile court offers advantages over the
YOPB in that it would already be familiar
with the ward's file, and would likely be
more responsive to the concerns of the
county, while still exercising independent
discretion. The main disadvantage with this
approach is that the juvenile court would
not have access to the lengthy assessment
information that is compiled by the Youth
Authority staff before each ward's initial
hearing before the board.
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 7
Require a Juvenile Court or County
Probation Department Recommendation.
This alternative would have the YOPB
continue in its current role, but would
allow counties to have more input. For
example, counties could recommend an
initial PCD to the board and the board
would have the discretion to deviate up or
down by a fixed amount set in statute. The
main advantage of this approach is that it
would preserve the input of the Youth
Authority, while still allowing counties
some control. The primary weakness of this
approach is that it would result in a
duplication of effort by the board and the
county.
Allow the Juvenile Court or the
County Probation Department to Make a
Recommendation to the YOPB.
This alternative would allow, but not
require, the court or county to make a
nonbinding recommendation to the YOPB as to
the appropriate PCD. Under this approach
the status quo would be largely maintained
except that counties would have the option
of having their concerns heard by the
board.
The author and/or the committee may wish to consider these
proposals as possible alternative approaches to the issues
the bill intends to address.
4. Basis of Fee: Change This Bill Proposes
This bill would provide that, for purposes of assessing the
sliding scale fee, the offense upon which a commitment is
based would be the offense requiring the longest period of
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 8
commitment prior to parole consideration. The sponsor
suggests this definition would prevent a technical parole
violation - a Level VII category - from skewing the offense
classification of ward. However, the YOPB regulations
currently base commitment categories on the most serious
offense in the ward's entire record.<3> Thus, it appears
that the proposed language may be unnecessary.
IS THE PROPOSED CATEGORY LANGUAGE NECESSARY?
5. Approval of Chief Probation Officer
This bill appears to give a chief probation officer or a
county what essentially would constitute "veto" power over
a change of category. As drafted, the bill refers to
changes made by the Youth Authority; however, it is YOPB
and not the Youth Authority, which assigns categories.
Currently, the sliding scale fees are determined by the
YOPB based on the category that a ward is assigned to at
his initial parole board hearing. As explained by the
Analyst:
The board assigns each juvenile committed to
the jurisdiction of the Youth Authority a
category number--from I to VII--based on the
-----------------------
<3> The current regulation ( 4945) provides: "A decision
on the parole consideration date shall be made on each case
by Board hearing category of offense at the initial hearing
by the appropriate panel . . . or by a referee at a
disposition hearing. Those cases committed from the
juvenile court on the total record which includes one or
more offenses which have been the subject of a prior
petition and disposition shall have the category of
decision making procedures set by the most serious offense
in the total record, and the most recent offense shall
establish the parole consideration date interval category.
All other cases involving a commitment for multiple
offenses shall have the parole consideration date and
category set by the most serious offense in the total
record."
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 9
seriousness of his commitment offense.
Because most juveniles are committed on the
basis of their entire records, this number
would correspond to the most serious offense
in their records, not necessarily their most
recent offense. Generally, offenses in
categories I through IV are considered the
most serious, while categories V through VII
are less serious.
The sponsor submits the language proposed by this bill
would guard against inappropriate categories being applied
to minors.
Because minors sent to the Youth Authority are adjudicated
by the juvenile court, and not the chief probation officer
or a county, the author and/or the committee may wish to
consider changing the bill's proposal to the court.
In addition, an absolute "veto" power over a state function
- assigning a category number for purposes of identifying a
baseline parole consideration date (PCD) - may be
inappropriate. The author and/or the committee may wish to
consider the alternatives suggest by the Legislative
Analyst, noted above, as an alternative to this bill's
proposed approach.
(More)
SB 599 (Costa)
Page 10
SHOULD PROBATION OR A COUNTY HAVE "VETO POWER" OVER A
CHANGE IN A WARD'S CATEGORY OFFENSE?
WOULD ANOTHER APPROACH BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN ADDRESSING THIS
ISSUE?
In addition, the sponsor submits that some counties have
been retroactively billed for changes in a ward's category
classification. Under the current practice, prior to a
ward's assessment and category assignment, counties are
charged only the base $150 monthly fee. Once a ward is
given an offense category, if their category requires a
county contribution the county is charged that sliding
scale fee retroactively for the period preceeding the
ward's assessment. It appears there may be some confusion
that this billing constitutes a change in a ward's category
offense, when in fact it covers the ward's initial,
pre-assessment incarceration period during which no sliding
scale fee had been billed.
IS THIS PROVISION NECESSARY?
***************